IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2:12-CR-128 (1) & (2)

Judge James L. Graham

Magistrate Judge E. A. Preston Deavers

BARBARA J. CUMMINGS, and

CHESAPEAKE CORPORATION,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The United States of America and Defendant Barbara J. Cummings personally and on behalf

of Defendant Chesapeake Corporation as its President entered into two separate plea agreements

whereby each Defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to a separate Information charging each

with one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. On September 4, 2012, Defendants,

accompanied by counsel, appeared for an arraignment. Defendants consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(3), to enter a guilty plea before a United States Magistrate Judge. See United States v.

Cukaj, 2001 WL 1587410 at *1 (6th Cir. 2001)(Magistrate Judge may accept a guilty plea with the

express consent of the Defendant and where no objection to the report and recommendation is filed);

United States v. Torres, 258 F.3d 791, 796 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 263-

69 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Ciapponi, 77 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 1996). Each Defendant

also waived the right to an Indictment in open court and after being advised of the nature of the

charge and of her/its rights. See F.R. Crim. P. 7(b). 

Case: 2:12-cr-00128-PCE Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
During the plea proceeding, the undersigned observed the appearance and responsiveness

of Defendant Cummings in answering questions. Based on that observation, the undersigned is

satisfied that, at the time she entered her guilty plea, Defendant was in full possession of her

faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental illness, and was not under the

influence of narcotics or alcohol. 

Prior to accepting Defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed her personally and in open

court and determined her competence to plead. Based on the observations of the undersigned,

Defendant understands the nature and meaning of the charge returned in the Information and the

consequences of the guilty pleas. Defendant was also addressed personally and in open court and

advised of each of the rights referred to in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

Having engaged in the colloquy required by Rule 11, the Court concludes that Defendants’

pleas are voluntary. Defendant acknowledged that the plea agreements signed by her personally and

on behalf of the Corporation, her attorney and the attorney for the United States and filed on June

6, 2012, represents the only promises made to her and the Corporation by anyone regarding the

charges in each Information. Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept or reject the

plea agreement and that, even if the Court refuses to accept any provision of the plea agreement not

binding on the Court, Defendant may nevertheless not withdraw her guilty plea. D e f e n d a n t

confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the statement of facts supporting the charge. She

confirmed that she is pleading guilty to Count One of the Information personally and on behalf of

Defendant Chesapeake Corporation because each is in fact guilty of the offense charged in the

Information. The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the pleas. 

2

Case: 2:12-cr-00128-PCE Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Court concludes that Defendants’ pleas of guilty to Count One of each Information is

knowingly and voluntarily made with the understanding of the nature and meaning of the charge and

of the consequences of the plea. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendant Barbara J. Cummings and Defendant

Chesapeake Corporation’s guilty pleas to Count One of each Information be accepted. Decision on

acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement was deferred for consideration by the District Judge

after the preparation of a presentence investigation report. 

In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, a written presentence investigation report will

be prepared by the United States Probation Office. Defendants will be asked to provide information

and an attorney may be present. Objections to the presentence report must be made in accordance

with the rules of this Court. 

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof

in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy

thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district court’s

3

Case: 2:12-cr-00128-PCE Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant waived

appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to magistrate judge's

report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not

raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A]

general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does

not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

DATE: September 4, 2012 s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4

Case: 2:12-cr-00128-PCE Doc #: 25 Filed: 09/04/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>